CDZ True or false, government dictating to private organizations is fascist.

[progressive hunter]

How about telling a business how much they're allowed to charge?

Depends. Neither dumping nor usury should be allowed.

Can you elaborate?

Dumping is interfering in the market dynamics (which gov can´t, right?). It has the potential to destroy the economy.
Usury is market abuse. It also has the potential to destroy the economy.
Where dumping and usury begin is up to the gov to decide.

which government are you talking about?? state or federal???

if federal you need to show where in the constitution that authority exists,,,

Article I, Section 8. "Congress shall have the power ..."
Paragraph 3. "... to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."

usury and dumping have nothing to do with the feds and their authority of regulation which only means to make regular and not control every action of a company,,,
those are state issues

 

[alang1216]

Those dictates should ensure that citizens and organizations operate in the public interest.

This is textbook fascism.

Why do you believe that organizations and citizens are obligated to "operate in the public interest"?

I probably should have said "Those dictates should ensure that citizens and organizations do not operate against the public interest."

Is that better?

 

[K9Buck]

Those dictates should ensure that citizens and organizations operate in the public interest.

This is textbook fascism.

Why do you believe that organizations and citizens are obligated to "operate in the public interest"?

I probably should have said "Those dictates should ensure that citizens and organizations do not operate against the public interest."

Is that better?

Sorry to upset you. I'm only going off what your statement.

 

[Andylusion]

Depends on what is being dictated. There are certain rules that are the responsibility of the government to dictate to all . Just because it is a private organization doesn't mean their building doesn't have to meet fire code. What specifically are you referring to?

How about telling a business how much they're allowed to charge?

Depends. Neither dumping nor usury should be allowed.

You do know what dumping is, right? Dumping, is selling something at a loss. Are you really saying you have a problem with someone giving you something, for a lower price than it cost them to make / provide it?

I'm a just a bit mystified by this, because the other 90% of the time, left-wingers are screaming about how terrible it is when a company makes a profit.

Then when they don't make a profit, you call it dumping, and scream we need to stop them from doing that as well.

I'm ok with getting rid of usury..... just understand that it would mean no more home loans, or car loans, or credit cards. You good with that? Because left-wingers are constantly saying that we need to increase access of the poor to capital. I disagree with that completely, but I hear that all the time from the left. Your position was be the opposite of that.

 

[alang1216]

Those dictates should ensure that citizens and organizations operate in the public interest.

This is textbook fascism.

Why do you believe that organizations and citizens are obligated to "operate in the public interest"?

I probably should have said "Those dictates should ensure that citizens and organizations do not operate against the public interest."

Is that better?

Sorry to upset you. I'm only going off what your statement.

I'm not upset but you made me reread it and I don't think organizations have to be a positive force in society so long as they are not a negative one.

 

[Andylusion]

Those dictates should ensure that citizens and organizations operate in the public interest.

This is textbook fascism.

Why do you believe that organizations and citizens are obligated to "operate in the public interest"?

I probably should have said "Those dictates should ensure that citizens and organizations do not operate against the public interest."

Is that better?

I would disagree with that.

The free-market *IS* the public interest. If I don't want a product or service... I wouldn't buy that product or service.

I don't need the government to determine what is in my interest.

Further, what is "In the public interest" routinely ends up being really what is in the politicians interest. Rarely do any of those public interest, extend beyond whatever interest group is supporting some politician.

Some union, donates millions to some politician, and then magically a policy that benefits the unions, while harming the public... is in the public interests.

No. No thanks.

 

[emilynghiem]

Depends on what is being dictated. There are certain rules that are the responsibility of the government to dictate to all . Just because it is a private organization doesn't mean their building doesn't have to meet fire code. What specifically are you referring to?

How about telling a business how much they're allowed to charge?

Are you talking about FEDERAL govt, State or City/County?
If the people of a district agree to certain contractual terms and agreements
within their community, that's the govt representing the people's agreement
democratically decided. That's not dictating if it represents the people affected and governed.

However if groups such as local civic or homeowner's groups take a locally decided ordinance,
but ABUSE their power to start policing or enforcing it OUTSIDE the consent of the community, that starts down the road of dictatorship.

The factor that makes the difference between dictatorship/abuse
and democratic lawful use of power is CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

So as long as you represent the CONSENT of the public and taxpayers affected
by a policy, this would be in keeping with government by for and of the PEOPLE.

In contrast, if you CIRCUMVENT consent of the people affected, that's abuse
no matter if it's a public or private organization doing it. The City of Houston is
a prime example of a private municipality, basically a collective corporation
with ability to TAX citizens under force of law, but without Constitutional
checks, limits or protections from abuse -- so it takes pushing and WINNING
lawsuits IN COURT before people there can protect their rights from abuse
of power "dictating" to them what the tax money and "public resources and
authority" are used for which are basically controlled by private corporate interests.

It's a huge lesson in WHY we would enforce Constitutional limits and checks
and balances on power instead of letting corporate entities do as they choose with
taxpayer resource and "public" authority.

 

[K9Buck]

Depends on what is being dictated. There are certain rules that are the responsibility of the government to dictate to all . Just because it is a private organization doesn't mean their building doesn't have to meet fire code. What specifically are you referring to?

How about telling a business how much they're allowed to charge?

Are you talking about FEDERAL govt, State or City/County?
If the people of a district agree to certain contractual terms and agreements
within their community, that's the govt representing the people's agreement
democratically decided. That's not dictating if it represents the people affected and governed.

However if groups such as local civic or homeowner's groups take a locally decided ordinance,
but ABUSE their power to start policing or enforcing it OUTSIDE the consent of the community, that starts down the road of dictatorship.

The factor that makes the difference between dictatorship/abuse
and democratic lawful use of power is CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

So as long as you represent the CONSENT of the public and taxpayers affected
by a policy, this would be in keeping with government by for and of the PEOPLE.

In contrast, if you CIRCUMVENT consent of the people affected, that's abuse
no matter if it's a public or private organization doing it. The City of Houston is
a prime example of a private municipality, basically a collective corporation
with ability to TAX citizens under force of law, but without Constitutional
checks, limits or protections from abuse -- so it takes pushing and WINNING
lawsuits IN COURT before people there can protect their rights from abuse
of power "dictating" to them what the tax money and "public resources and
authority" are used for which are basically controlled by private corporate interests.

It's a huge lesson in WHY we would enforce Constitutional limits and checks
and balances on power instead of letting corporate entities do as they choose with
taxpayer resource and "public" authority.

Very nice write-up. Thank you.

The U.S. recognizes individual rights. Therefore, a majority can still impose their will on a minority through the force of government. For instance, a community of tenants can vote for new regulations that effectively permit their local government to "dictate" to the property owner as to how much he can charge for rent, and they do. And, yes, I believe it is a fascist form of governance.

 

[Pellinore]

Reminder, this is the "Clean Debate Zone".

True. Fascism permits private ownership, but not necessarily private management.

I think the OP statement is too broad. "Dictating to" can be seen as including business laws and regulation, which is not only not fascist, but required to keep run-wild capitalism in check. "Controlling," maybe, but not "dictating to."

I agree that companies must be precluded from dumping waste into our rivers. I disagree that government should be able to tell them how to run their business, how much to charge, etc.

I respect that opinion. My view is that weak or absent economic regulation leads quickly and inevitably to price fixing, company stores, market gouging, economic bubbles, and so forth, so while I think it would be market-strangling overkill to tell each corner grocer that they must charge two dollars per loaf of bread, no more no less, putting reasonable limits on pricing is allowable, even necessary.

 

[K9Buck]

Reminder, this is the "Clean Debate Zone".

True. Fascism permits private ownership, but not necessarily private management.

I think the OP statement is too broad. "Dictating to" can be seen as including business laws and regulation, which is not only not fascist, but required to keep run-wild capitalism in check. "Controlling," maybe, but not "dictating to."

I agree that companies must be precluded from dumping waste into our rivers. I disagree that government should be able to tell them how to run their business, how much to charge, etc.

I respect that opinion. My view is that weak or absent economic regulation leads quickly and inevitably to price fixing, company stores, market gouging, economic bubbles, and so forth, so while I think it would be market-strangling overkill to tell each corner grocer that they must charge two dollars per loaf of bread, no more no less, putting reasonable limits on pricing is allowable, even necessary.

Can you provide an example of how limiting price is necessary?

 

[Frannie]

Reminder, this is the "Clean Debate Zone".

True. Fascism permits private ownership, but not necessarily private management.

All governments dictate to corporations. Taxes for one

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[Bleipriester]

I saw a documentation about this in India and it is the hell.

At least you can buy stuff, get to a warm bed and won´t get raped after a 7 or 8 hours workday. Extravagances that Sumangali girls can´t afford.

thanks for your opinion,,,

I would love to have a 7-8 hr work day

So what´s your workingday? 12 hours?

at best,,,

Poor man. You should look for a better job, I guess.

why are you changing the subject???
OH I know ,because it shows that your concerns are nothing but rantings of a socialist,,,

Sorry my friend, 12+h doesn´t sound socialist, anyway. If you don´t want better conditions, hold a worker vote.

However, the conditions of the working places world wide don´t meet domestic standards, they undermine them, take over finally.

 

[Bleipriester]

You do know what dumping is, right? Dumping, is selling something at a loss. Are you really saying you have a problem with someone giving you something, for a lower price than it cost them to make / provide it?

While lower costs are attractive, they cost domestic jobs in the end. The prices are down but the wages follow.

I'm a just a bit mystified by this, because the other 90% of the time, left-wingers are screaming about how terrible it is when a company makes a profit.

Then when they don't make a profit, you call it dumping, and scream we need to stop them from doing that as well.

I'm ok with getting rid of usury..... just understand that it would mean no more home loans, or car loans, or credit cards. You good with that? Because left-wingers are constantly saying that we need to increase access of the poor to capital. I disagree with that completely, but I hear that all the time from the left. Your position was be the opposite of that.

What are your accusations about? Local "left" or "right" definitions that I don´t have the slightest thing to do with?
You want a cheap iPhone but your commies have a red button for them.

 

[the other mike]

You do know what dumping is, right? Dumping, is selling something at a loss. Are you really saying you have a problem with someone giving you something, for a lower price than it cost them to make / provide it?

While lower costs are attractive, they cost domestic jobs in the end. The prices are down but the wages follow.

I'm a just a bit mystified by this, because the other 90% of the time, left-wingers are screaming about how terrible it is when a company makes a profit.

Then when they don't make a profit, you call it dumping, and scream we need to stop them from doing that as well.

I'm ok with getting rid of usury..... just understand that it would mean no more home loans, or car loans, or credit cards. You good with that? Because left-wingers are constantly saying that we need to increase access of the poor to capital. I disagree with that completely, but I hear that all the time from the left. Your position was be the opposite of that.

What are your accusations about? Local "left" or "right" definitions that I don´t have the slightest thing to do with?
You want a cheap iPhone but your commies have a red button for them.

Andy-illusion is afraid of me and keeps me on ignore.
Everything bad is the left's fault....that's his only m.o.

 

[alang1216]

The free-market *IS* the public interest. If I don't want a product or service... I wouldn't buy that product or service.

I don't need the government to determine what is in my interest.

Your ideological purity is duly noted. I agree that a free-market is in the public interest and in the interest of new businesses trying to establish themselves. However it is not in the interest of established businesses who would prefer monopolies and government restrictions on competition. Gov't must not only keep the free-market free but it must insure the product or service you purchase is safe and what is promised.

 

[progressive hunter]

The free-market *IS* the public interest. If I don't want a product or service... I wouldn't buy that product or service.

I don't need the government to determine what is in my interest.

Your ideological purity is duly noted. I agree that a free-market is in the public interest and in the interest of new businesses trying to establish themselves. However it is not in the interest of established businesses who would prefer monopolies and government restrictions on competition. Gov't must not only keep the free-market free but it must insure the product or service you purchase is safe and what is promised.

what do you mean by safe???

I dont know of any product on the market that isnt unsafe in one way or another,,,,

by giving that power to the government means at any time they can lets say that an ATV is unsafe and ban the manufacture of it,,,

 

[Andylusion]

You do know what dumping is, right? Dumping, is selling something at a loss. Are you really saying you have a problem with someone giving you something, for a lower price than it cost them to make / provide it?

While lower costs are attractive, they cost domestic jobs in the end. The prices are down but the wages follow.

I'm a just a bit mystified by this, because the other 90% of the time, left-wingers are screaming about how terrible it is when a company makes a profit.

Then when they don't make a profit, you call it dumping, and scream we need to stop them from doing that as well.

I'm ok with getting rid of usury..... just understand that it would mean no more home loans, or car loans, or credit cards. You good with that? Because left-wingers are constantly saying that we need to increase access of the poor to capital. I disagree with that completely, but I hear that all the time from the left. Your position was be the opposite of that.

What are your accusations about? Local "left" or "right" definitions that I don´t have the slightest thing to do with?
You want a cheap iPhone but your commies have a red button for them.

Lower costs and lower wages, are unavoidably connected. If you demand higher wages, then the result is that customers have to pay the higher price. I'm pretty sure that I have read posts by you yourself, talking about how wages have not kept pace with price inflation.... well driving up prices, does just that.

And while it will increase wages for a specific few, it won't increase wages across the vast majority of Americans. Resulting in wages not keeping up with prices, the exact problem we hear left-wingers complain about.

China is far from communist. They have engaged in capitalism, on a whole sale level.

The whole reason free-market profit driven companies that engage in world trade, is because they are engaging in capitalism. This is why wages are rising in China, and the GDP of the country is growing.

Now even with all that, the Chinese government itself, is an aggressive geopolitical enemy.

However, even if you were to say we need to restrict trade on the basis of national security (an argument I would be slightly sympathetic to), do not fool yourself into believing that this would bring jobs to the US. It most certainly would not.

If we imposed a significant restriction on trade with China, companies would simply move to other low wage, or low tax countries.

If we imposed a universal restriction on imports, then one of two things would happen.

A: They would still produce products outside the US, and US citizens would simply not have as many products to buy, or the same products just vastly more expensive.

B: They would still make products outside the US, but also make some products in the US, that would be more automated, to avoid high labor, or be exceptionally expensive.

For example, you could force Apple to make products in the US... but they would not be produced by thousands of workers, like is done elsewhere. Instead it would be entirely automated, with a couple of people hired to push the start and stop button.

So given this reality, that regardless of what action you impose, those jobs are not coming back.... then the entire complaint isn't valid. You can say "they are stealing our jobs" but if it doesn't matter what we do, those jobs are not coming back, then what is the point?

Because I guarantee, those jobs are not coming back. Won't happen.

 

[Andylusion]

The free-market *IS* the public interest. If I don't want a product or service... I wouldn't buy that product or service.

I don't need the government to determine what is in my interest.

Your ideological purity is duly noted. I agree that a free-market is in the public interest and in the interest of new businesses trying to establish themselves. However it is not in the interest of established businesses who would prefer monopolies and government restrictions on competition. Gov't must not only keep the free-market free but it must insure the product or service you purchase is safe and what is promised.

Well.... obviously..... there are companies that would prefer government shut out competition. I grasp that. That doesn't change what I said.

Because if the government shuts out competition.... then it is not a free-market capitalist system.
A monopoly cannot actually exist in a free-market system. The only way to have a monopoly, is with the force of the Federal government, which again, isn't a free-market system.

So obviously I am not in favor of that.

Further, government never has, never will, make sure that all products are what are promised, or safe. That has never been the case, and never will be.

The free-market system itself, insures that products are safe, and what they are promised. Because if you don't, people stop buying the product.

 

[Anathema]

Reminder, this is the "Clean Debate Zone".

True. Fascism permits private ownership, but not necessarily private management.

It depends on what they’re dictating to the company. Are they dictating basic operational methods, safety procedures, or something else?